Robert P. Budgell

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $1,582.

The plaintiff brought an occupiers’ liability action after slipping on a greasy food substance in a casino buffet restaurant.

The court considered whether the occupier breached the duty of care under s. 3(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act by failing to implement adequate inspection and cleaning policies.

Evidence showed that multiple staff members were responsible for monitoring and cleaning spills and that the spill causing the fall had occurred only seconds before the incident.

The court held that the inspection system was reasonable in the circumstances of a busy buffet-style restaurant and that no breach of the statutory duty of care was established.

In the alternative, the court found the plaintiff failed to prove causation because the spill occurred only moments before the fall and could not reasonably have been prevented.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that pierced the corporate veil and set aside a transaction under s. 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyance Act.

The respondents cross-appealed regarding $8,000 taken by the appellant following the deceased's death.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge applied the correct test from Wildman v. Wildman.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, noting the appellant admitted to taking the $8,000, which was an asset of the estate.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the respondents.